• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What can we all do?

RJKarl said:
It can't apply to a newspaper picking a candidate.

It absolutely applies to "issue ads" from all sides.
Click to expand...

I'm unclear why it can't apply to a newspaper if it applies to the SEIU (the press is the press)... but okay. My feedback -- aside from 1st Amendment considerations (which I believe are considerable), you'd be facilitating an incredibly ill-informed electorate. Not that the publicly-financed monies wouldn't help with the communications... but they'd be well short of the funds necessary for widespread communications. Sounds a little Orwellian to me...
 
There are already restrictions on advertising - tobacco advertising. Is that a violation of the first amendment?
 
beatrix said:
I'm unclear why it can't apply to a newspaper if it applies to the SEIU (the press is the press)... but okay. My feedback -- aside from 1st Amendment considerations (which I believe are considerable), you'd be facilitating an incredibly ill-informed electorate. Not that the publicly-financed monies wouldn't help with the communications... but they'd be well short of the funds necessary for widespread communications. Sounds a little Orwellian to me...
Click to expand...

News is news.

We're talking about paid advertising. I don't understand how you confuse the two.

There are no 1st Amendment issues. Advertising is commerce. Commerce can be regulated.

There's nothing "Orwellian" about putting a budget on campaigns. If anything it would give good insights on how candidates manage their money.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
There are already restrictions on advertising - tobacco advertising. Is that a violation of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

I don't know.. but my sense is the First is more about protecting political speech and, in kitchen English, supporting the right of the electorate to challenge / communicate with / participate in its government...
 
v_for_vendetta_parliament_explosion.jpg
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How so? The majority of them got elected because of what happened in 2008 and 2009.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
Cronyism would be a huge issue with appointment of senators. Look at what happens when governors make interim appointments. One of the good things about the senate is the possibility that one Dem represents Dem interests in the state and one Pub represents Pub interest in the state if the voters so choose.
Click to expand...

If a Dem Senator steps down/dies with McCrory in office, he has to appointment a Dem to replace him. State law.
 
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of case law supporting the fact that the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation.
 
beatrix said:
I don't know.. but my sense is the First is more about protecting political speech and, in kitchen English, supporting the right of the electorate to challenge / communicate with / participate in its government...
Click to expand...

Using your logic, no advertising could be regulated. The right's favorite group, NAMBLA could not be stopped form buying space.

Further if it's a free speech issue, then the NRA couldn't stop the Brady Group from their "free speech" to advertise their politics on the NRA website and in their publications.
 
RJKarl said:
Using your logic, no advertising could be regulated. The right's favorite group, NAMBLA could not be stopped form buying space.

Further if it's a free speech issue, then the NRA couldn't stop the Brady Group from their "free speech" to advertise their politics on the NRA website and in their publications.
Click to expand...

These are two different issues. First off I thought NAMBLA was allowed to advertise. As to the second sentence, the First Amendment does not mean that private parties can't do what they want with their own publications. That's not a First Amendment issue.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If a Dem Senator steps down/dies with McCrory in office, he has to appointment a Dem to replace him. State law.
Click to expand...

Are you saying McCrory doesn't have any Dem friends? I'm not sure what your point is here.
 
RJKarl said:
News is news.

We're talking about paid advertising. I don't understand how you confuse the two.

There are no 1st Amendment issues. Advertising is commerce. Commerce can be regulated.

There's nothing "Orwellian" about putting a budget on campaigns. If anything it would give good insights on how candidates manage their money.
Click to expand...

I'm differentiating between news and opinion. IMO, a corporation like the WSJ can support a candidate via its opinion pages... as can the SEIU via its communications. So if you're cutting off the SEIU, I assumed you'd cut off the WSJ as well. Again, the press is the press.

I disagree with you (or anyone) who says there are no First Amendment issues inherent in this. The right to freedom of communication is pretty clear-cut.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
These are two different issues. First off I thought NAMBLA was allowed to advertise. As to the second sentence, the First Amendment does not mean that private parties can't do what they want with their own publications. That's not a First Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

The government has many regulations about what advertisers can and cannot say.
 
If the SCOTUS hadn't said money is speech then publicly financed elections would be a way to limit advertising. With current case law though I don't see how it can be limited.
 
RJKarl said:
The government has many regulations about what advertisers can and cannot say.
Click to expand...

Right but that's because they are considered to be some sort of expert on the topic is my understanding. They cannot fraudulently lead people to purchase a product for example. Obviously I'm no expert on the first amendment, but I think there's a substantial difference between a manufacturer paying for air time on a TV and then saying their lawnmower cuts grass in five minutes and a candidate buying air time to talk about whatever he wants.
 
beatrix said:
I'm differentiating between news and opinion. IMO, a corporation like the WSJ can support a candidate via its opinion pages... as can the SEIU via its communications. So if you're cutting off the SEIU, I assumed you'd cut off the WSJ as well. Again, the press is the press.

I disagree with you (or anyone) who says there are no First Amendment issues inherent in this. The right to freedom of communication is pretty clear-cut.
Click to expand...

A newspaper expressing an opinion is different than a union or an individual buying advertising space.

You have EVERY right to communicate in the public square. You have no right to buy advertising.

It's quite clear and quite settled about how and where tobacco and alcohol may be advertised. Don't they have a right to communicate?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Right but that's because they are considered to be some sort of expert on the topic is my understanding. They cannot fraudulently lead people to purchase a product for example. Obviously I'm no expert on the first amendment, but I think there's a substantial difference between a manufacturer paying for air time on a TV and then saying their lawnmower cuts grass in five minutes and a candidate buying air time to talk about whatever he wants.
Click to expand...

That's not all that is included. Some things aren't to be advertised at certain times. TV shows with certain speech aren't allowed on public airwaves. What about their free speech?

Speech and commerce can absolutely be regulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top